Primary Jaw Tumors in Children

Instructor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, and Attending Surgeon, Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA.
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (Impact Factor: 1.43). 07/2012; 71(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.045
Source: PubMed


PURPOSE: To document tumor type, biological/clinical behavior, management, and outcomes in children with primary jaw tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of children with primary benign jaw tumors evaluated at Massachusetts General Hospital and Children's Hospital Boston from 1991 to 2009 was conducted. Patients were included if they were aged 16 years or younger and had adequate records and follow-up. Patient charts, radiographs, and pathology reports were reviewed. Demographic data; clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic findings; treatment; and outcomes were recorded. Predictor variables were tumor type, clinical behavior (nonaggressive/aggressive), and treatment. Outcome variables included presence or absence of recurrence and complications. Descriptive statistics were computed. RESULTS: There were 102 patients (44 male and 58 female patients) with a mean age of 8.3 years (range, 6 months to 16 years). Tumors were grouped by tumor type: mesenchymal (n = 96), neurogenic (n = 5), vascular (n = 5), or hematopoietic (n = 3); in addition, when appropriate, they were classified as nonaggressive (n = 54) or aggressive (n = 27). Treatment was based on the tumor's clinical/biological behavior and radiographic features and whether it was solitary or multifocal. Patients with nonaggressive tumors were treated by enucleation, debulking/contouring, or observation, and the recurrence rate was 0%. Aggressive tumors underwent en bloc resection or enucleation with systemic adjuvant therapy, and the recurrence rate was 7.1%. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that primary jaw tumors in children exhibit variable biological/clinical behavior, often not predicted by descriptive histologic findings. Management of these tumors should therefore be guided by clinical/biological behavior.

15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Characteristics and epidemiology of jaw tumours have been described mostly in adults. Compared with their adult counterparts, childhood jaw tumours show considerable differences. The aim of this study was to describe the different jaw tumours in children, define diagnostic tools to determine their specificity and describe optimal treatment. METHODS: All children patients with jaw lesions, excluding cysts, apical granuloma and osteitis were included in our study between 1999 and 2009. The medical records were analyzed for clinical, radiological, and pathological findings, treatments and recurrences. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 10.9 years old, ranging from 2 months to 18 years old. Of the 63 lesions, 18 were odontogenic and 45 non-odontogenic lesions. 6% of all cases were malignant tumours; the mean age of presentation was 7.25 years old, [ranging from 0.2 to 18 years old]. Approximately 80% of the tumours developed after 6 years of age. Odontogenic tumours occurred more often after the age of 6. CONCLUSION: Compared with their adult counterpart, childhood jaw tumours show considerable differences in their clinical behaviour and radiological and pathological characteristics. Clinical features of some tumours can be specific to children. Tumourigenesis is related to dental development and facial growth. Conservative treatment should be considered.
    Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery: official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 05/2013; 42(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2013.03.007 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the diagnostic value of MDM2 status in craniofacial fibro-osseous lesions, we investigated MDM2 expression by immunohistochemistry and analyzed MDM2 amplification by qPCR in 30 cases of ossifying fibroma (including 13 cases of the juvenile variant) and 17 cases of fibrous dysplasia. Two cases of uncommon extragnathic psammomatoid fibrous dysplasia and a mixed control group of 15 cases of low-grade osteosarcoma and 15 cases of well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma were included. MDM2 amplification was found in 33% of ossifying fibromas (peak of 69% for the juvenile variant) and in 12% of fibrous dysplasia, in none of which was MDM2 overexpressed. All control cases exhibited MDM2 amplification and overexpression. To investigate possible polysomy of chromosome 12, we studied RASAL1 amplification, a gene telomeric to MDM2 on the long arm of chromosome 12. RASAL1 amplification was reported in all benign fibro-osseous lesions exhibiting MDM2 amplification but not in controls. Simultaneous amplification of these two genes was significantly higher in juvenile ossifying fibromas compared with fibrous dysplasia (P=0.004), non-juvenile ossifying fibromas (P=0.001), and all other benign craniofacial fibro-osseous lesions combined (P=0.0001). Of the nine cases of juvenile ossifying fibroma exhibiting amplification, three were locally invasive and four were recurrent, suggesting aggressive disease. The two cases of extragnathic psammomatoid fibrous dysplasia also showed MDM2 and RASAL1 amplification with no MDM2 overexpression. This large chromosome 12 rearrangement, spanning MDM2 and RASAL1, is the first recurrent molecular abnormality to be reported in juvenile ossifying fibroma. It may represent both a molecular diagnostic marker and a characteristic of more aggressive forms with a higher risk of recurrence. Finally, the presence of this rearrangement in extragnathic psammomatoid fibro-osseous lesions mimicking ossifying fibromas might reflect a common molecular pathway in their pathogenesis and calls into question the classification of such lesions within fibrous dysplasia.
    Modern Pathology 06/2014; 28(1). DOI:10.1038/modpathol.2014.80 · 6.19 Impact Factor